When JW.org drops 607BCE...

by Nathan Natas 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PetrW

  @TonusOH

  The "invisible presence" is another concept that is very dubious. The word "παρουσια" which means "presence" carries an element of physical presence. Paul in Phil 2:12 makes a distinction between his own physical "παρουσια" to his physical absence, i.e. "απουσια". JWs basically deny the possibility that Jesus ever appeared on earth physically, in the flesh. They literally forbid it in their theology. 😊 In this context, it is interesting that John claims in 2 John 1:7 that those who deny Jesus "coming" ("ερχομενος") in the flesh ( εν σαρκι) are seducers and Antichrist. The participle of present, "coming" is very interesting - it really means an activity that happens (and lasts) in the present. It is very important in the theologically significant passages Mat 24:30 // Mk 14:26 // Lk 21:27 about the coming Christ with the clouds, whom they will(!) see. In the future event (they will see) is the present event (the coming of Christ).

  So if the apostles were asking about his "παρουσια" they were interested in how they would identify him again - physically - in the future. "Invisibility" would have been the direct opposite of what the apostles expected and also what Jesus assured them would come. And John even links the denial of Christ's physical (second) coming with the Antichrist. So it is clear that only the possibility of Christ's physical - second - coming opens up the possibility of false Messiahs appearing. And also the Antichrist himself (i.e., instead of Christ). And that is why Christ warns against them.

  ---

  But I think your question was mainly directed at whether Christ was somehow deliberately hiding the time of His coming. I don't think so. The answer to when His second coming will occur is really tied to when God Himself decides. The human answer to the timing of Christ's coming is - in my opinion - intimately connected to the question of God's love and justice, the "theodicey" question. Why didn't Jesus come in the 5th or 13th or 18th or 20th century? Will he come only in the 23rd century? It's a complex question and beyond the scope of the discussion...

  But one can ask other things: did Jesus warn that his coming would not come immediately, within a generation or two after the apostles? That is a simpler question. 😊 At the end of Jesus' answer to the question of the time and the sign of his (physical) presence, he also communicates (Mat 24:42): watch, for you do not know in what day your Lord will come. He then communicates to them three parables that have a common, characteristic element: they always contain a moment in which the "actors" of these parables are responding in some way to the fact that the Lord is not coming (Mat 24:48), that He has tarried (Mat 25:5), or that He is returning only after a very, very long time (Mat 25:19). As in the first parable, it is again also emphasized that the (evil) slave will not know when the Lord is coming (Mat 24:50), so also in the second parable, the call to watchfulness is repeated (Mat 25:13). And in the third parable, the "unexpectedness" of the coming of the master after a very long time is actually the main source of trouble, for the "useless" slave.

  In Rev. 1:1, we do encounter the statement that events will occur "soon," but the Greek phrase ( εν ταχει) has more of a "speed" meaning. The events that are described there will happen in rapid succession - if the 1260 days of preaching by the two witnesses who are killed by the Beast, who will be active for 42 months, then in terms of the 2000 years that have elapsed since this text was written, it would be very "quickly" indeed. The question is, did the Christians in Ephesus, who were one of the recipients of this Revelation, understand it that way as well? For in Rev. 1:3 it is written that "the time is at hand." What time? I assume that the Christians at that time had at least the same information as we do today: they knew that if they were the "generation that would not pass away", then the latest possible time for the second coming of Christ would be sometime between 130 and 140 AD. But Jesus did not come. So they had to pass on the information to their descendants or younger fellow believers that they may be the generation that will not pass away, so they have to be vigilant, but it is still true that they may not be the generation that will not pass away either. In fact, all that remains is the call to be vigilant. The question of why it's taking so long is addressed by the answers within theodicy... so we go back to the beginning again😊 It can be answered, but ugh, it's really quite a large area...
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  I have demonstrated that 587 BCE is the correct year, and I have shown why 586 BCE is not the correct year. Why would I continue to pose it as a valid alternative after I have already established that it is not? But I have provided logical premises that show why 587 BCE is the correct year, without earlier premises relying on subsequent premises or the conclusion (which would be circular reasoning). But the entire concept of valid logical premises seems to beyond your capacity.

  --

  Not really. Your Blog has as its title '586 or 587?' Thus a reader would expect a discussion of both sides of the debate. This you have not done. All that you have done is prove to your satisfaction 587 BCE is the correct date based on your methodology. A little honesty is required.

  --

  If you want to build a case for 586 BCE go ahead, and then I'll show you why and where you're wrong. But I expect analysis, not just parroting. Get busy.

  --

  Thiele and most other scholars have already done that based on a methodology similar or identical to your methodology. There is no need for the said scholar to try to determine a precise date for the Fall as it is easily proved to be 607 BCE and not 588, 587 or 586 BCE.

  scholar JW
  
  
  
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Poor 'scholar' imagines that I have some 'agenda' for 'preferring' 587 BCE over 586 BCE. My only 'agenda' in the matter is that the evidence indicates that 587 BCE is the correct year. Unlike 'scholar', with his pitiful attempt at projecting his own distorted motivations on to me, I have no superstitious 'requirements' for any specific year to be the 'right' one

  ---

  Poor Jeffro cannot resolve his .

  internal contradiction regarding the date for the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem and resolve the difference between his date/s and that of the real scholar and chronologist Edwin Thiele Phd.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Bleat all you like ‘scholar’, but you can’t actually demonstrate any errors in my analysis that shows 587 BCE to be the correct year. Instead you defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s that has since been supplanted by comparison with Babylonian records. You do this not to try to confirm the correct dating but to imply doubt about the correct chronology, because you imagine that gives support to the nutty JW chronology. You are entirely dishonest.

  Poor Jeffro cannot resolve his .
  internal contradiction regarding the date for the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem

  ‘scholar’ claims I have an “internal contradiction” regarding the start of the siege but is unable to specify the supposed contradiction because it does not exist. He earlier quoted a statement from the analysis about 588 BCE or 589 BCE, demonstrating that ‘scholar’ misunderstands that the analysis necessarily does not assume later premises and therefore doesn’t explicitly exclude potential candidates until there is reason to do so. The analysis goes on to demonstrate the specific correct year. ‘scholar’ is a liar, inept, or both.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  Your Blog has as its title '586 or 587?' Thus a reader would expect a discussion of both sides of the debate. This you have not done.

  Indeed, rather than tedious debate based on conjecture, I provide logical premises based on data in the source material to reach logical conclusions. Complain all you like, but if you want to say the conclusions are incorrect, you need to identify errors in the logic.
• 

  scholar

  Jefro

  Bleat all you like ‘scholar’, but you can’t actually demonstrate any errors in my analysis that shows 587 BCE to be the correct year. Instead you defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s that has since been supplanted by comparison with Babylonian records. You do this not to try to confirm the correct dating but to imply doubt about the correct chronology, because you imagine that gives support to the nutty JW chronology. You are entirely dishonest.

  --

  To refute your methodology which is the basis for your proof for 587 BCE is impossible as it is your scheme or contrivance something that you have devised. The same with other schemes such as Thiele's which using a similar methodology differs from your scheme. It is the clear biblical evidence that refutes or disproves your scheme and that clearly proves 607 BCE rather than 587.

  ---

  ‘scholar’ claims I have an “internal contradiction” regarding the start of the siege but is unable to specify the supposed contradiction because it does not exist. He earlier quoted a statement from the analysis about 588 BCE or 589 BCE, demonstrating that ‘scholar’ misunderstands that the analysis necessarily does not assume later premises and therefore doesn’t explicitly exclude potential candidates until there is reason to do so. The analysis goes on to demonstrate the specific correct year. ‘scholar’ is a liar, inept, or both.

  --

  I have merely quoted what you have said about the date for the beginning of the siege which differs from that of Thiele. It is your problem not my problem. It is very hard to understand gobbledegook!!

  scholar JW
  
  

  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Thanks for once again demonstrating that you don’t understand how to either form or assess a cogent logical premise, conclusion or argument.
• 

  scholar

  Jeffro

  Indeed, rather than tedious debate based on conjecture, I provide logical premises based on data in the source material to reach logical conclusions. Complain all you like, but if you want to say the conclusions are incorrect, you need to identify errors in the logic.

  --

  But all that you have posted on your blog concerning 587 is simply conjecture and assumptions no matter how logical it may appear to you, do not make it so. A contrivance composed pf pretty coloured charts unlike the stark black and white of Thiele is what it is.

  scholar JW
  
  
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  To refute your methodology which is the basis for your proof for 587 BCE is impossible

  See, ‘scholar’ admits that it is impossible to refute my proof of 587 BCE. Unless he supposes that a subsequent statement of his places that statement in a particular context. But that would make him a dishonest hypocrite. 🦆
• 

  Jeffro

  ‘scholar’:

  But all that you have posted on your blog concerning 587 is simply conjecture and assumptions no matter how logical it may appear to you, do not make it so. A contrivance composed pf pretty coloured charts unlike the stark black and white of Thiele is what it is.

  See how ‘scholar’ continues to bleat with empty words but fails to demonstrate either an understanding of the material or any refutation of any premises (fallacy: poisoning the well). He also continues to defer to outdated scholarship from the 1940s (fallacious appeal to authority).